visual cocktail party phenomenon l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 296 Views
  • Uploaded on

Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon. Julie Witherup Angela French Amanda Caddell Kevin Utt . Introduction. Moray (1959) Cocktail Party Phenomenon Can select to listen to information from one source in a busy environment But can pick up “relevant” information from unattended sources.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon' - jana


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
visual cocktail party phenomenon

Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon

Julie Witherup

Angela French

Amanda Caddell

Kevin Utt

introduction
Introduction
  • Moray (1959)
    • Cocktail Party Phenomenon
    • Can select to listen to information from one source in a busy environment
    • But can pick up “relevant” information from unattended sources
introduction cont
Introduction (cont.)
  • Neisser and Becklen (1975)
    • Selective “looking”
    • People watch game and count passes
    • Miss person walking through middle
research idea
Research Idea
  • The person in Neisser and Becklen could be considered an unattended channel
  • So if the person is made relevant, should not the person be easier to detect?
hypothesis
Hypothesis
  • In a Neisser and Becklen type video, participants will detect and identify a visually relevant person more often than a less visually relevant person
method
Method
  • Participants
    • 26 students
      • 25 Caucasian
      • 1 Japanese
      • 31% freshman
      • 23% sophomores
      • 23% juniors
      • 23% seniors
slide7
Equipment
    • Video production
      • Digital Camcorder: Sony digital handycam, model number DCR-TRV17
      • Video edited by: QuickTime Pro by Apple Computers, Inc.
    • Apparatus
      • Video presented on:
        • Gateway computer model # E-3400
        • Windows 98
        • QuickTime version 6.5
        • Screen size 15” diagonal
slide8
Stimuli – 2 videos
    • Recording
      • Filmed in same room to ensure identical background – camera remained in same position via tripod
      • Filmed in one session, but three separate stages
        • Three stages
          • Game in black T-shirt
          • Game in white T-Shirt
          • First person filmed walking across camera field of view, then the second person
slide9
Stimuli (cont.)
    • Production--3 video clips superimposed
    • Resulting 2 Videos
      • Personally relevant person
      • Less personally relevant person
slide10
Procedure
    • Randomly assigned
      • Condition 1: Relevant Person
      • Condition 2: Less Relevant Person
    • Video
    • Questionnaire
      • How many bounce passes?
      • Demographics
      • Questions relevant to condition
        • Relevant—“How often do you eat in the UG?” (Likert Scale)
        • Less Relevant—“How often do you go to the Career Center?” (Likert Scale)
      • Did you see someone walk through the players?
      • If so, who was it?
results
Results
  • Chi Square Analyses
    • Comparing the frequency of whether participants detected a person walking across the screen in each condition

² (1) = 1.39, ns

slide12

Chi Square Analyses

    • Comparing the frequency of whether participants identified the person walking across the screen in each condition

² (2) = 6.19, p < .05

discussion
Discussion
  • No significant relationship on the number of times the person was detected
  • However, relevance did seem to influence the number of times the person was correctly identified
  • Even when seen, there were no attempts at identifying the less relevant person
limitations
Limitations
  • Personally relevant individual may not have been equally relevant to all participants
  • Personally relevant and less relevant individuals may have looked too much alike
  • The two people’s paths were not identical
  • Counterbalancing of the perceptual task
future directions
Future Directions
  • Use a person that is truly significant to each individual for the relevant condition

e.g., athletic coach

references
References
  • Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56-60
  • Neisser, U. & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480-494